This is also a lens I considered (under the body only option) but then I feel like I'd be limited in the photos I can take until I get a zoom lens. Does it mean I'd have to carry both cameras with me when I go out ? I don't even want to start thinking about that...

You can always get something like a used 24-70mm or a 24-105mm later on. The combination of the DSLR body and a prime lens is small and lightweight. You can also concentrate on the fixed field of view of the prime lens, and taking more and more picture you will learn how to "frame" instantly your scene. And you can always "zoom" walking to or further away from your object.

I wish I had your choices in 2003 when first considering a better camera than the compacts I was using at the time. The FF option at that time was priced stupid at $8k but I too had made the decision that for my type of photography, a FF camera was needed. The cropper Digital Rebel was announced in Aug of 2003 and released in Sept. 2003 at a price point I could swallow as an interim camera until Canon released an affordable FF. The better croppers were $500 more.

I would consider the 6D the beginner level camera of the FF line. It is not a direct correlation to the cameras available in 2003, but does reflect a step or two up as to how a beginner camera is defined, the price you are paying if inflation adjusted for 2003 in US dollars will cost less than a beginner level crop of 2003.

I voted for the 6D/24-105 option but if your math is correct and the 6D/24-70/4 is only $130 more, that's a harder choice than I first thought when I voted because the 24-70/4 is more than $130 better than the 24-105.

I would consider the 6D the beginner level camera of the FF line. It is not a direct correlation to the cameras available in 2003, but does reflect a step or two up as to how a beginner camera is defined, the price you are paying if inflation adjusted for 2003 in US dollars will cost less than a beginner level crop of 2003.

Thank you. You're making my purchase look more reasonable

I voted for the 6D/24-105 option but if your math is correct and the 6D/24-70/4 is only $130 more, that's a harder choice than I first thought when I voted because the 24-70/4 is more than $130 better than the 24-105.

I'd love to hear more opinions and comments about that.

At the price I can get it, it is indeed only $130 USD more expensive.

Is the overall quality and usability so much better that it justifies losing 35mm worth of range while paying 130 USD more for it ?

panoviews wrote:

You can always get something like a used 24-70mm or a 24-105mm later on. The combination of the DSLR body and a prime lens is small and lightweight. You can also concentrate on the fixed field of view of the prime lens, and taking more and more picture you will learn how to "frame" instantly your scene. And you can always "zoom" walking to or further away from your object.

You make a good point. This would be good practice in order to get used to a full-frame sensor and learn how to position myself in a scene to take a good shot (instead of relying on the zoom).

However, if I forego any of those kits, I'd feel like I'd be passing up a too good deal, considering their price brand new when not included with a camera.

For example, the price I'd be paying for the 6D + 24-105 lens (brand new) would be the same, if not slightly less expensive than buying 6D brand new first and then, refurbished 24-105 lens later.

As for the 6D + 24-70 4L kit, it is definitely less expensive to buy them together brand new than camera first and then, refurbished lens later.

I could add the 40mm pancake lens to my list of immediate purchases (it would only be about 115 USD second-hand) but will I actually use it, when I already have a zoomable lens ? (I know, I am just running around in circles...)

This leads me to another question: if one has either of those lenses (24-70 F4L or 24-105 F4L), is the other required/must-have down the line ?

If both lenses are a must-have and I want to cut down on costs in the long run, it might be best to get the 24-70 kit now and get a refurbished 24-105 later. This would cost less than the other way around.

Bite the bullet and get the 24-105L kit. If you really hate the way things turned out (which you won't), you can easily sell the 24-105. It's a great lens and pairs well with the 6D.

Word of caution, the 6D takes a bit more getting used to in order to make good photos. The focusing system, combined with the shallow DOF, make for it to be a "photographer's camera" more so than the XXXD or XXD series. It's focusing system is more than adequate, but it's not as good as the 70D. I'm finding, though, using both, that the 6D is my go-to. It's just that good.

I'd also say start with the standard kit, but if you want a 40, grab it. They're inexpensive but good in quality.

Had the same problem. A few weeks ago I bought the 6D and don't regret it for a moment. Beautiful (and that the AF system is a little disappointing is rubbish that is repeated by the ones who don't have one). It's a wonderful camera. And very good in low light too.

Have also a 40D and was still so pleased with it that I saw no use in upgrading with another APS-C sensor camera. But now FF and that is different. A lot better in image refinement.

And then what objective. Chose the 24-105, which was also attractie as it was in a kit. Is a very good objective and especially very uasable. With my 40D I had an EOS10-22, a 17-55 IS USM and a 70-200 L IS USM. All very good. But used almost exclusively the 17-55 because of the otherwise needed changes. And 17-55 was an ok range, but a little (too) short. And now is is a joy to shoot wiyhout restriction with the 17-105 and getting very nice image quality.

Hello. Since this is my first post, a little self-introduction and background is in order

I'm a beginner who started photography a few months ago with a DSLR borrowed from a friend (a Canon 1000D with a 18-55 lens)

So far, I really enjoy photography and find myself going out more often, specifically to take pictures. Now the camera never leaves me when I'm going out on weekends/evenings.

I'm trying to shoot anything I can and try to find my style. So far, I've enjoyed mostly anything (nature, close-ups, people, city architecture etc). You can see some of my photos here

I decided I wanted to get my own camera and while there are many choices, I want a full-frame (really like landscapes, wide-angle shots etc) so my first choice would be the 6D.

I currently live in Japan and Canon is doing a promotional campaign until the 13th of January where they give back between 10000 and 20000 yens, depending on what you get (about 100 to 200 USD)

So I have a bit of a dilemma right now. Here are my options:

- body only for about $1390 USD ($1300 USD after MIR from Canon)

- 24-70 F4L IS lens kit for about $2223 USD ($2000 USD after MIR from Canon)

- 24-105 F4L IS lens kit for about $1965 USD ($1870 USD after MIR from Canon)

- keeping my money because spending so much at my level is overkill

I should also mention that if I go the body only option, I'd have to buy a lens as well as I currently don't own any.

I'm leaning towards either the 24-105 F4L lens kit (while shooting with my current camera, I found out I really lack some range) or...not buying at all.

I've added the 24-70 F4L because reviews of the lens put it higher than the 24-105 and it's only 130 USD more expensive.

Any comments ? Recommendations ?

Thanks for the help.

If you are serious about photography, I feel you are making a great decision to get a camera with lots of physical controls instead of a better entry-level camera. I went through a fairly fast progression of cameras, upgrading fairly quickly due to frustrations with having to get into menus every time I wanted to change much of anything. Honestly, I feel people who have really been bitten by the photography bug are better off to start with as good a camera as they can afford straight off, and one that is part of a well-established system. Then, as you grow, your system will not limit you. So, to me, the choice for someone in your situation would be between a 70D and a 6D, kind of a split between some of your poll options.

I have a 6D and really love it, other than the autofocus system, which, other than the center point (which is killer!), is about like your 1000. So, I think you would be getting a great camera in the 6D, and it is an awesome value right now. The 70D is a great camera, too, and a few hundred dollars cheaper, but I think if you want high-quality lenses, you are going to be buying 'full-frame' lenses anyhow, especially for primes, so you don't save any money on lenses. You also don't really save size or weight, as the 6D and 70D are pretty the same size and weight.

The 70D also has more features, such as the flippy-twisty-touchy screen, which can be handy, and it has far superior live view and movie capabilities, if those are important to you. It also has a faster continuous rate, and I think a bigger buffer, if you are interest in shooting sports or moving animals (the AF system should be better at that, too).

Personally, I would recommend the 70D for most people in your situation, but you are already interested in the 6D, so probably have already dismissed the 70D for some reason, and in the end you know your needs better than any of us can.

Purchasing an EOS camera-system with interchangeable lens as one of its main features means that whichever lens you initially purchase will likely not be the last one and that if your interest in photography continues, there will be additional lens purchases. Choosing a useful, optically decent, wide focal range lens as the first one allows you to experience the focal range capabilities without a huge investment.

I would consider the 6D the beginner level camera of the FF line. It is not a direct correlation to the cameras available in 2003, but does reflect a step or two up as to how a beginner camera is defined, the price you are paying if inflation adjusted for 2003 in US dollars will cost less than a beginner level crop of 2003.

Thank you. You're making my purchase look more reasonable

I voted for the 6D/24-105 option but if your math is correct and the 6D/24-70/4 is only $130 more, that's a harder choice than I first thought when I voted because the 24-70/4 is more than $130 better than the 24-105.

I'd love to hear more opinions and comments about that.

At the price I can get it, it is indeed only $130 USD more expensive.

Is the overall quality and usability so much better that it justifies losing 35mm worth of range while paying 130 USD more for it ?

panoviews wrote:

You can always get something like a used 24-70mm or a 24-105mm later on. The combination of the DSLR body and a prime lens is small and lightweight. You can also concentrate on the fixed field of view of the prime lens, and taking more and more picture you will learn how to "frame" instantly your scene. And you can always "zoom" walking to or further away from your object.

You make a good point. This would be good practice in order to get used to a full-frame sensor and learn how to position myself in a scene to take a good shot (instead of relying on the zoom).

However, if I forego any of those kits, I'd feel like I'd be passing up a too good deal, considering their price brand new when not included with a camera.

For example, the price I'd be paying for the 6D + 24-105 lens (brand new) would be the same, if not slightly less expensive than buying 6D brand new first and then, refurbished 24-105 lens later.

As for the 6D + 24-70 4L kit, it is definitely less expensive to buy them together brand new than camera first and then, refurbished lens later.

I could add the 40mm pancake lens to my list of immediate purchases (it would only be about 115 USD second-hand) but will I actually use it, when I already have a zoomable lens ? (I know, I am just running around in circles...)

This leads me to another question: if one has either of those lenses (24-70 F4L or 24-105 F4L), is the other required/must-have down the line ?

If both lenses are a must-have and I want to cut down on costs in the long run, it might be best to get the 24-70 kit now and get a refurbished 24-105 later. This would cost less than the other way around.

i have the 6d with 35 f2 is, 85 1.8 and 270 ex II flash. Nice, small and cheap but great quality. I don't see myself adding any other lenses for awhile I am waiting for the rumored Sigma 2.0 full frame zoom eventually : )

No use pondering it over for days, I just bought a 6D with the 24-105 lens.

I will likely add more lenses very soon (eyeing the 40mm pancake and a prime wide-angle lens, although that Canon 14mm f2.8L II sure is expensive...) but for now, I would likely need a bag, a tripod and a second battery

I will also consider the various lenses that were mentioned, such as the 35mm f2 and 100L macro

Thanks to everyone who voted, commented, gave their opinions and pieces of advice !